VW Fallout: $2.0 Billion for ZEV Infrastructure Buildout

[miimura]

Jeff, I could not have said it better. It was quite naive for Fred to think that Porsche was going to build a national network when VW Group was already forced to spend $2B to build the EA network. Dealer service locations need DC chargers in order to troubleshoot cars in for service, so it only makes sense to allow customers to use them too.

 

[SageBrush]

But, it is VW spending on VW-owned infrastructure. It can be part of VW’s overall business plan but it has to be open to drivers of all cars and cannot be branded as VW. Although the charging must be standards-based and non-proprietary they are not required to equally support both CHAdeMO and CCS and they don’t.

In my opinion, this is ultimately good because encourages VW to spend the money effectively (or at least what they think is effective) as a way of supporting the marketing of their cars against Tesla and others. This has been part of encouraging VW to make a real business commitment to competing for EV sales rather than just more low-sales minimal “compliance”.

Revisionist history again.

CARB found that VW had polluted more than allowed. Since it is not possible to retrieve the pollution from the air CARB demanded that VW reduce pollution in the future in somewhat commensurate amounts. The mechanism agreed upon was to accelerate the adoption of electric and other zero tailpipe emissions vehicles. CARB is agnostic (except when it comes to Tesla) as to which EVs are on the road.

 

[RiverBrick]

I’ve lost count of the final amount but I think it’s well over $10 billion in the US and they are now having to pay out in settlements in other countries.

They've settled with many TDI owners in other countries.

However, there have been very few settlements outside of the USA with governments for VW's criminal actions and the resulting harm to people's health.

For example, in Canada there's no program to reduce NOx and the "volontary" Electrify Canada effort is over ten times smaller than Electrify America proportional to the number of TDI vehicles in each country.

The Canadian government claims their investigation is ongoing and they can't comment. If they settle tomorrow it will have taken over 3X as long as in the USA.

 

[Jeff N]

Revisionist history again.

CARB found that VW had polluted more than allowed. Since it is not possible to retrieve the pollution from the air CARB demanded that VW reduce pollution in the future in somewhat commensurate amounts. The mechanism agreed upon was to accelerate the adoption of electric and other zero tailpipe emissions vehicles.

You are describing Appendix D. The environmental trust fund is designed to, and the grants that can be made from it are explicitly designed to, undo VW’s excess nitrogen oxide emissions.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_info/vsi/vw-mititrust/documents/2016-10-25_2l_cd.pdf

As described below and in Appendix D (Form of Environmental Mitigation Trust Agreement), Settling Defendants will pay a total of $2,700,000,000 to fund Eligible Mitigation Actions that will reduce emissions of NOx where the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles were, are, or will be operated. The funding for the Eligible Mitigation Actions required by this Consent Decree is intended to fully mitigate the total, lifetime excess NOx emissions from the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles

The $2.7 billion was bumped up to be $2.9 billion in a later related settlement.

This is different from Appendix C which does not have specific goals of counteracting VW’s excess emissions but is instead about promoting and enabling the quick expansion of EVs on the road. VW has decided to spend most of the money on building out an alternative to the Supercharger network which just (not so) coincidently is needed in order to help competitively market their own EVs

 

[Pollux]

CARB is agnostic (except when it comes to Tesla) as to which EVs are on the road.

Hi, @SageBrush,

What motive does CARB have for discriminating against Tesla?

Do you have evidence, particularly statements and/or policies?

Thanks!

Alan

 

[SageBrush]

What motive does CARB have for discriminating against Tesla?

Good question -- no idea.
But it is either discrimination or stupidity. Tesla sells 90% of EVs in the US (and I presume in CA), yet they direct billions of funding to building a network that 90% of EV buyers cannot use.

Is that how any rational person would advance the adoption of EVs ?

 

[Pollux]

Good question -- no idea.
But it is either discrimination or stupidity. Tesla sells 90% of EVs in the US (and I presume in CA), yet they direct billions of funding to building a network that 90% of EV buyers cannot use.

Is that how any rational person would advance the adoption of EVs ?

I agree that there is something weird about CARB's focus on hydrogen, especially given that most (all?) commercially available hydrogen generates a lot of extra carbon as part of the steam methane reforming (SMR) cycle.

If I recall correctly, @McRat believes there is some kind of corruption going on inside of CARB that results in this hydrogen obsession.

Perhaps there's a "let 1000 flowers bloom" philosophy. But at this point, as far as I know, CARB has only two flowers -- BEV and hydrogen -- and hydrogen more closely resembles a noxious weed than a flower.

Maybe we see evidence for a counter-current -- inside BEV joke -- at CARB in that they seemingly have dragged their feet on spending VW settlement dollars on hydrogen. Or maybe that's because VW doesn't want to spend any of its settlement money on hydrogen.

Alan

 

[SageBrush]

I agree that there is something weird about CARB's focus on hydrogen

No mention of hydrogen by me.

 

[wws]

I agree that there is something weird about CARB's focus on hydrogen, especially given that most (all?) commercially available hydrogen generates a lot of extra carbon as part of the steam methane reforming (SMR) cycle.

If I recall correctly, @McRat believes there is some kind of corruption going on inside of CARB that results in this hydrogen obsession.

There is. Mary Nichols has always been a HUGE H2 supporter.

 

[Jeff N]

This just out:

Tesla battery storage going to 100+ Electrify America locations in 2019

To reduce utility “demand charges” and operating costs during peak usage, Electrify America is adding stationary storage systems from Tesla at more than 100 of its new electric vehicle fast DC charging stations, the company announced today.

....

According to Electrify America, each of their locations with battery storage will initially get two Tesla Powerpack battery cabinets for a combined capability of about 350 kWh of storage and output of about 210 kW of power and more capacity can be added later as needed.

 

[MP3Mike]

This just out:

Tesla battery storage going to 100+ Electrify America locations in 2019

That is interesting since a normal each Powerpack is 210 kWh and 50 kW. At least according to Tesla's site. So two would be 420 kWh and 100 kW.

I wonder if EA is getting custom ones designed more for peak energy output rather than capacity.

 

[Jeff N]

That is interesting since a normal each Powerpack is 210 kWh and 50 kW. At least according to Tesla's site. So two would be 420 kWh and 100 kW.

I wonder if EA is getting custom ones designed more for peak energy output rather than capacity.

I noted that awhile back as well.

As you can see in the photo of the Recargo site Powerpack nameplate near the bottom of my article, those are rated as 174 kWh energy capacity (perfect match with the EA specs) and 131 kW DC of peak power output (EA spec says 105 kW DC). The nameplate says it is for a ”2 HR” configuration and I’ve seen reference to there also being 3 hour and 4 hour variants. I should probably follow up with Tesla and try to better understand this.

It could be that EA is quoting peak power for AC output after going through Tesla’s inverter. I don’t know. Or maybe they are quoting a nominal power output value that takes into account lower SOC as the storage discharges.

Update:
I just noted under the “press” descriptions of Tesla products that they distinguish the 2 hour specs from the 4 hour specs which are apparently the ones posted in the main product page for the Powerpack.

Press Kit | Tesla

2-hour System

• AC Energy: 174 kWh

• Round Trip Efficiency: 87%*

• Operating Temperature: -22ºF to 122ºF

• Scalable from: 50 kVa – 650 kVa

• Weight: 2073 kG / 4570 lbs

• Nominal Frequency: 50 or 60 Hz

• Powerpack Dimensions: L: 51.5” (1308 mm) W: 32.4” (822 mm) H: 86” (2185 mm)

4-hour System

• AC Energy: 210 kWh

• Round Trip Efficiency: 89%

• Operating Temperature: -30ºC to 50ºC

• Scalable from: 50 kVa – 650 kVa

• Weight: 2159 kg / 4750 lbs

• Nominal Frequency: 50 or 60 Hz

• Powerpack Dimensions: L: 51.5” (1308 mm) W: 32.4” (822 mm) H: 86” (2185 mm)

 

[Jeff N]

And here it is....

Electrify America reveals national plan for Cycle 2 investment

Electrify America has released its new national plan for the the 30-month period beginning in July and it mostly focuses on building DC fast charging locations at 18 metro areas across the country with a smaller focus on adding sites along regional highways near some cities. That general focus is consistent with the separate Cycle 2 plan for California released late last year.

....

The company plans to spend between $145 million and $165 million on metropolitan area DC charging at sites with typically 5 charging spaces that will support 150 kW CCS charging rates. At least one of those charging spaces would include support for CHAdeMO. Some sites could have as few as 3 charging spaces or be limited to 50 kW charging rates while others could have as many as 10 spaces depending on expected utilization and the available site facilities.

 

[Pollux]

I appreciated this statement from your article:

As in the Cycle 1 plans, no money is being spent on hydrogen refueling stations for fuel cell cars. Electrify America says it was unable to identify investments that would be consistent with a viable long-term business plan. The company owns and operates most of the DC charging it is installing and is allowed to make a profit.

 

[Jeff N]

New construction status...

Electrify America says 105 sites open now, claims 500+ to open by end of year

Electrify America has 105 stations open and available for public DC fast charging in the United States with hundreds more planned to be completed and online by the end of the year, according to a new status update issued by the company today. All 484 locations planned as part of its first 30-month investment cycle have now been identified and secured.

Beyond the 105 sites open now, another 127 are under active construction with 42 of those completed but waiting to be energized by utilities. A further 73 sites have approved permits and are schedule for construction. Only 79 of the total 484 sites are still in the design and engineering stage.

....

 

[RubberToe]

New construction status...

Electrify America says 105 sites open now, claims 500+ to open by end of year

It's funny that @FlatSix911 gave you a "funny" for this post . He is probably questioning the 500+ being open this year.

It would be very interesting to see whether EA ever posts usage statistics for their system. I don't believe that usage information needs to be provided in the semiannual reports. It would be even more fun to compare the usage growth to Tesla Supercharger usage growth. Tesla has the display at Kettleman City, but the quarterly reports don't report Supercharger usage statistics unless I'm missing it.

Good science project to compare the various charger networks growth and power delivered. I think you end up seeing that Tesla is crushing the competition and will continue to do so.

Having said that, it's great that other EV drivers now have the option to do long distance travel in their EVs. They will see what they have been missing for not buying a Tesla .

RT

 

[Jeff N]

It would be very interesting to see whether EA ever posts usage statistics for their system. I don't believe that usage information needs to be provided in the semiannual reports.

I think that’s correct. EVgo provides usage statistics in its reports to California but I don’t think EA has to and so probably will not.

 

[FlatSix911]

It's funny that @FlatSix911 gave you a "funny" for this post . He is probably questioning the 500+ being open this year.

It would be very interesting to see whether EA ever posts usage statistics for their system. I don't believe that usage information needs to be provided in the semiannual reports. It would be even more fun to compare the usage growth to Tesla Supercharger usage growth. Tesla has the display at Kettleman City, but the quarterly reports don't report Supercharger usage statistics unless I'm missing it.
Good science project to compare the various charger networks growth and power delivered. I think you end up seeing that Tesla is crushing the competition and will continue to do so. Having said that, it's great that other EV drivers now have the option to do long distance travel in their EVs. They will see what they have been missing for not buying a Tesla . RT

I have little faith in the 500+ stations opening this year... but I love chasing rainbows and unicorns

 

[miimura]

I have little faith in the 500+ stations opening this year... but I love chasing rainbows and unicorns

They claim that they already have site agreements for 484 sites. So, I think 500 open sites by year end is a definite possibility. The site agreements and grid connection study are the hardest parts.

 

[Jeff N]

They claim that they already have site agreements for 484 sites. So, I think 500 open sites by year end is a definite possibility. The site agreements and grid connection study are the hardest parts.

On the other hand, they said they would have 9 sites open by the end of 2018 but only ended up with 3 (now 5). It’s a pretty aggressive schedule.